To let you know, I am a Christian who has 2 degrees in the Bible (two classes from my second Masters in the Bible).

The Biblical exegesis of that text goes against the forced hermeneutics being placed on the text. They seek to do a word study on a word that has a variety of meaning and ideas which are not supported in the actual exegesis. As all Biblical scholars agree, our exegesis should determine our hermeneutics.

If you would like me to address each single point, I would be glad to.

Decrease wrote:I think we are defining things differently. In context when we were talking about this subject we were talking about natural consequences not in regards to natural law--which is where your definition is derived, but from natural ramifications. In other words, I don't work so I lose my job. Now, that is not natural in the sense that natural law is at play but it is a natural consequence to your actions, it is logical and rational. Thus, the abusing of a door means you lose access to a door. The abuse of authority is the loss of that authority. So on and so forth.

I would, if I were you, engage in the thought process of natural law in that regards.

Decrease, that example you gave here is called a logical consequence, not natural.

Humiliation, as a show for others, is neither logical nor natural.

We will agree to disagree. I seriously doubt you would see bullying in my home and would find a wonderful atmosphere of joy and companionship.

........until such a time when a child chooses a path seperate from yours, right? And then the tactics are not joy and companionship, but bullying and winning, as you have demonstrated.

Yes, the false dichotomy of internal versus external pressure. You ask Freud about internal and external pressure and he would say internal. If you asked Pavlov and he would say external. I personally say that both apply. I think you create a false dichotomy here that is irrational.

How is it irrational? By allowing a child to feel, with gentle guidance on how to correct, the problem is taken care of. When they are adults they will be faced many times with making decisions without anyone shaming them if they don't do the right thing. They will have to figure things out on their own, and as young teens they need to be prepared with taking the bulk share of the responsibility to be disciplined. Just as we feed an infant, we eventually have to let them make messes while learning to feed themselves, and then they learn to eat better, and clean up those messes, then make a simple meal, and so on. Discipline is no different. By giving them tools to use and guiding as necessary, we set them up to be responsible adults.By shaming them unneccessarily and bullying them by withholding basic rights, we force them to retreat and be sneakier so as to not get caught.

Now, as far as Jesus he did embarrass his disciples. Publicly he told rebuked them whether it was Peter when Peter refused to have his feet washed and then wanted his entire body washed. He also focused on the heart issues as well. It was Jesus, as God, who commanded obedience to certain laws (the 10 commandments). They struck a person down when that person, trying to do good, disobeyed by having the ark carried on a cart. As stated over and over again, there is a false dichotomy set up. Obedience is doing what your supposed to do when your supposed to do it with the right heart attitude. That is the definition I have listed three times. No false dichotomy here and it is what i repeat. I do not think you are reading my entire posts as you are attacking me in areas I have already addressed. We strive to win the heart... which is what I have shown here over and over in this text.

Please do not compare the story of Jesus washing Peter's feet to humiliating a child in the living room in front of friends and neighbors. That is highly offensive. Jesus did not rebuke him with the smugness of a parent whose child did wrong and now must "pay", Jesus was attempting to get Peter to understand that he was cleansing the soul.

How you can even compare the two is unimaginable.

Yet, despite what I have said you choose to see the worse in me. I rarely discipline my children. Yet, when I do I am decisive and loving. And, believe it or not, my kids think going out with their dad on our monthly date is the greatest thing in the world... I do not crush them... I build up their character.

I only see what you show.

I discipline my children all the time. It's how we live. To discipline is to teach, and I see no reason to seperate out lessons until they make a mistake. Life is about learning.
We simply don't punish here, and have no need for it. I have no need to hurt my children to see if they still love me.

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."
- M. MontessoriProud non-member of the HSLDA

To let you know, I am a Christian who has 2 degrees in the Bible (two classes from my second Masters in the Bible).

The Biblical exegesis of that text goes against the forced hermeneutics being placed on the text. They seek to do a word study on a word that has a variety of meaning and ideas which are not supported in the actual exegesis. As all Biblical scholars agree, our exegesis should determine our hermeneutics.

If you would like me to address each single point, I would be glad to.

And I will have you know I am a linguist.

A christian is only as good as their interpretation of the book. If they choose to interpret pain and suffering from a book that teaches love, then so be it.
It doesn't matter what kind of degree you have if your heart tells you to hurt others, and twist the words to suit.

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."

Well, whatever your definition of "rod", it definitely doesn't represent a reward, therefore it indicates negative reinforcement and not positive reinforcement. We could argue all day over whether the verse means an actual rod or not, but the point is that the Bible does recommend punishment - at least punishment lovingly and systematically administered. I fail to see how it's possible to arrive at any other interpretation.

Proverbs 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Proverbs 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.

Proverbs 23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

Proverbs 10:13 In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding.

Incidently, the word used is "shebet", which has a fairly clear meaning - rod or staff or tree branch or similar things. Given, this was likely used on older children, not young kids, but the base principle certainly applies.

I am glad you are a linguist, I would the research all the occurrences of the Hebrew word Rod. You will find that in almost all cases, it does not represent what you say it represents. Secondly, the few "could go either way", cases would then, I am sure you would agree, have to rely upon all the other uses to help convey the definition. In other words, while the definition may slightly vary, it does not change entirely.

As well, I am sure you know that in linguistics, the first rule of thumb is the context determines the meaning. It is unfair, as I believe is being done here, to post a later definition of a word onto the word. For instance, in the Bible Phileo is often said to convey brotherly love/friendship. The problem is that definition of the word was not present for a couple of more centuries and therefore Phileo does convey this idea in the Greek. The Hebrew word for rod does change definitions slightly (not to the extent the article conveys) Centuries later, but to convey that idea back on the text when the context clearly rejects it is impossible.

Obviously you wouldn't use a stick, what was considered normal back then (because kids were tougher) is considered child abuse now. Hypothetically speaking, a light plastic serving spoon is much better, the mass-to-surface area ratio means it only stings rather than making bruises or cuts, and it breaks if you apply too much force.

As for humiliation and starvation, there's a huge difference between "humiliation" in front of your family and humiliation in front of people outside of your family, and a few hours without food is not even close to starvation.

2 Thessalonians 3:10: For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Last edited by Theodore on Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Theodore wrote:Obviously you wouldn't use a stick, what was considered normal back then (because kids were tougher) is considered child abuse now. Hypothetically speaking, a light plastic serving spoon is much better, the mass-to-surface area ratio means it only stings rather than making bruises or cuts, and it breaks if you apply too much force.

As for humiliation and starvation, there's a huge difference between "humiliation" in front of your family and humiliation in front of people outside of your family, and a few hours without food is not even close to starvation.

2 Thessalonians 3:10: For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Theodore, Jesus didn't hit children.

If God lives in all of us, who am I to hit God?

Now, your comparison of humilation....are you defending this:

Decrease wrote:Whenever anyone asked "Why is your door laying in the living room", my niece had to tell them about her slamming the door (and a lot of people asked).

with this:

there's a huge difference between "humiliation" in front of your family and humiliation in front of people outside of your family, and a few hours without food is not even close to starvation.

?

And if you are talking about the word of God, I suggest not bringing in annonymous letters that happened to make their way into the bible. That is not God's thought's, but one person's letter to another, and adults at that - not starving children.

ETA: edited to remind all that striking children with anything other than an open hand is considered abuse and grounds to have your cihldren taken away.

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."

Is your theory here that anything Jesus isn't described as doing is expressly forbidden? You do know that Jesus had no children, and that the verses I quoted have to do with parents training children? The fact that Jesus didn't punish other people's children is extraneous to the current debate.

Now, your comparison of humilation....are you defending this

Guess I missed that part. You win a debate point. Still, I doubt the experience will scar her for life. It will motivate her never to slam the door again.

And if you are talking about the word of God, I suggest not bringing in annonymous letters that happened to make their way into the bible. That is not God's thought's, but one person's letter to another, and adults at that - not starving children.

Um. What are you talking about? Have I missed something important here?

2 Thessalonians 1:1: Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:

This sure looks anonymous. And I suppose the apostle Paul was just randomly making things up? If you believe that the Bible is true (and you have to if you're a Christian), then you also have to believe that the authors of the Bible were inspired by God, otherwise what good would the Bible be? There'd be no way to tell which are the "good" parts and which the "bad" parts.

Theodore wrote:Um. What are you talking about? Have I missed something important here?

2 Thessalonians 1:1: Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:

This sure looks anonymous. And I suppose the apostle Paul was just randomly making things up? If you believe that the Bible is true (and you have to if you're a Christian), then you also have to believe that the authors of the Bible were inspired by God, otherwise what good would the Bible be? There'd be no way to tell which are the "good" parts and which the "bad" parts.

The nature of 2 Thessalonians and the wording of it suggests strongly that it was writ by someone else, not the original authors.
Second, inspired by also means a person has his or her own opinions, and such any writing will be colored by that. If you are going to take random letters and call them the word of God, then I suggest not participating in a debate over what God decrees.

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."

when referring to the Bible, "inspired by" does not have the same meaning as if it were a love poem "inspired by" a beautiful woman. The Bible is inspired by God - everything written in it is God's Word. The WHOLE Bible is infallible truth given to by God through the authors. I have agreed with a lot of what you have said, Lily, but if you do not believe the simple truth that the Bible is all completely true and all comletely God's Word, then it kind of makes anything you say about being a Christian invalid. You can't pick and choose which parts of the BIble you believe and follow and which ones you don't.

I really don't understand how all discipline can be positive. It doesn't have to be humiliating and degrading, I agree, but it is not all sunshine when I have to discipline my daughters.

mommyto2girls wrote:when referring to the Bible, "inspired by" does not have the same meaning as if it were a love poem "inspired by" a beautiful woman. The Bible is inspired by God - everything written in it is God's Word. The WHOLE Bible is infallible truth given to by God through the authors. I have agreed with a lot of what you have said, Lily, but if you do not believe the simple truth that the Bible is all completely true and all comletely God's Word, then it kind of makes anything you say about being a Christian invalid. You can't pick and choose which parts of the BIble you believe and follow and which ones you don't.

Sure I can, otherwise I would have to believe God said this:

Lev.21:17-23Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. ... Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries

If I don't believe in a loving God, one that won't expel my 5yo neighbor from church because he's in a wheelchair, or my son, because he's an Aspie, then I cannot believe in God. I don't believe any power who is said to have created life would so willingly cast those aside who are not perfect.

I really don't understand how all discipline can be positive. It doesn't have to be humiliating and degrading, I agree, but it is not all sunshine when I have to discipline my daughters.

It's not positive as in happy-rosy positive, but positive as in a positive direction. There's no retribution, no eye for an eye, everything is considered a teaching moment to help the child grow to adulthood. The entire outlook of discipline is changed to "what can we learn from this?" or "how can we stop the problem?" and looks toward treating the cause, not the symptoms, or if the child is too young, then using age appropriate methods that work with their limitations. It's hard to explain, but there's many books on it, including Christian ones like Grace Based Parenting. I wrote a short list that sums it up, too, that seems to explain more if anyone wants to read.
All I can say is it changed the dynamic of our household greatly to one of peace and calm when we stopped punishment 6 years ago. There's no way I would ever go back to hurting my children needlessly.

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."

The last time that I checked, Leviticus was in the Old Testament, and praise God we are no longer under the Old Covenant. That would be the reason our gracious God sent his pure and blameless Son to die for us. There is no way we could live under Old Testament law. And, in any case, this was referring to sons of Aaron and it meant that they could not be preist because they portrayed our most Holy unblemished High Priest, God. The blemished brothers of Aaron could even share the food of priests, just not actively serve as priests.

I am through with this. You are right, Pam. Enough of my blood pressure being raised from arguing with someone who would likely argue even with something she agreed with.

I hope no one who is not a believer or who is a new Christian looks to Lily for advice, however. They would certainly be deceived.

Last edited by mommyto2girls on Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:40 am, edited 1 time in total.